INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth the Act ) both dated 29.01.2024 , which has emanated from the orders of AO, Circle Ferozepur, dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act (for A.Y. 2014- 15) and order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( for AY 2017-18 ). I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 5(4), Amritsar passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the renvenue in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. Whether on the facts

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SHRI ADARSH KUMAR NAGPAL,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), ABOHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating facts of the case on record. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making the addition under section 69 of the Act against the payment of Motor Vehicle Tax on behalf of the business concern. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition relating

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dasuya,(in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 6/Asr/2021 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The assessee filed the appeal with delay

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 ITR 39 (AP) g. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs CCIT (2001) 251 ITR 849 (AP)“ 6. Registration u/s 12AA: An issue raised by the Revenue during the course of argument. a. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per paragraph 2.3 of Order of Ld CIT, the only issue in the present case of was of application

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69 treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench. But after

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250+250+22.92+23.73+30.52+250+21.92+28.96+37.24+20. 68+32.09+28.87+301.98+35.95+36.96) = £ 1371.82. Since the residential status of late Prem Chand in India in FY 2006- 07 was “Resident” in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act, therefore the said credit entries totalling to £ 1371.82 were I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 8 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 taxable in India

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 214-IT-CIT(A)/BTI/07-08 dated 08.07.2010 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in initiating the proceedings under section

M/S RAJINDER KOUL HUF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2012-13.The impugned order was originated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Srinagar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act date of order 10.08.2015. 2. The grounds of the appeal are extracted as below

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25th April, 2024 (for ITA No. 391 and 392 ) and dated 29th April, 2024 (for ITA Nos. 383 to 388), all emanating from respective orders of ACIT- Circle – 1, Jallandhar , passed u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, passed on respective dates. 2. Facts of the case and the issues involved being common